Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CS-4

[This is a model, telling how a limiting and coercive normal context may sustain a contradiction-filled intersection in order to benefit from the conflict. The detractors are blamed for ‘the failure of the sovereign religion’s thoughts and actions’.

However, once the detractors (thinkdivine and consciencefree) are intimidated into silence, and the projection of thinkanti-object and conscienceanti-object onto innocents is obvious to all, then the inherent contradictions between the self-dealing moral system and its idolatrous actions become more and more undeniable.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CS-3

[The content-level nested form depicted in these two blogs is:

‘Sovereign self-empowerment3a’ brings the actuality that ‘programs of the Progressive religion are good’ and ‘the rational observations of detractors is bad’2a into relation with the possibilities inherent in the feelings of the citizens (such as the feeling of entitlement or disbelief) and of the authorities (such as feelings of strength and superiority)1a.

The above actuality is ‘an intersection of human intention and human action’.

The vertical nested form (of human intention) is:

ThinkProgressive3V brings the intentions of the bureaucratic elites2V into relation with the potential of the Progressive’s self-anointed conscience1V.

The alternates (of thinkdivine and consciencefree) are placed under suspicion and threat.

The horizontal nested form (of human action) is:

Explaining away the consequences3H brings the bureaucratic actions of welfare programs2H into relation with the potential of dispositions to trade freedom & responsibility for material benefits1H.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CQ

[All interventions by the postreligious (enlightenment) sovereign religions are ‘we win and you lose’ for traditional religions.

Once intentions are more consequential than consequences, then consequences may be blamed on scapegoats.

When the intervention improves the actuality, it verifies the ideological slogan.

When the intervention worsens the actuality, it verifies the ideological slogan.

What slogan?

We are the good ones who must identify and destroy the bad ones.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CP

[In contrast, non-indoctrinated observers see corruption.

Progressive intervention increases dependency (that is, bondage) and denies responsibility. Progressive interventions substitute words, promises and laws for responsibility. Responsibility is rendered bad, in concert with the slogan-word, ‘entitlements’.

Recipients are entitled. All others are are demeaned whenever they suggest that recipients are not entitled.]


Man and Sin by Piet Schoonenberg (1964) 2.2 CO

Summary of text [comment] page 75

[In addition, the single actuality in an intersection may be contextualized by a content-level normal context.

When Progressives try to do good through central government intervention, they impose a context that influences this single actuality. They impose a normal context as part of their sovereign religion.

That normal context brings a potential into relation with the actuality of ‘what is good and what is bad’. For Progressives, that potential always contains ‘the possibility of enhancing sovereign power’.


The so-called benefactors of Progressive sovereign power are rendered good, in concert with the slogan ‘welfare is for the good of single parent households’.]